further adventures in Jed York being unsuited for his position
agree
LIST OF WWE PERSONNEL?!?
add another item to the pile as to why this was a bad idea
Dennis Dodd could have stopped at the headline, but he continued to write an excellent article.
true, but let's get those conditions up
but he's not a lollipop guild member
michigan thankfully does not feature
Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon
Michigan:
Offense - 97
Defense - 94
Special Teams - 91
Prestige - 6
http://forums.traditionsportsonline.com/threads/ncaa-13-team-ratings.78725/
Also, the demo for 360 came out today and will be out tomorrow for PS3.
First thing I see is Michigan D > Alabama D. Mattison uber alles.
EDIT: Also BS on 99 for LSU offense.
91 Offense & 89 Defense?
I don't think LSU's 99 offense is BS. Didn't you hear what they did to Tiger Stadium after the National Championship?
First thing I see is that 97 is our overall, not offense. It clearly says in the post "Overall - Offense - Defense - Prestige" yet OP added special teams instead of overall...
Also, our defense is rated lower than Alabama's and LSU isn't rated with a 99 offense.
I have glanced through their site, but it doesn't seem like much has changed from 12. Am I wrong on this? I'm not going to buy the game unless they have some pretty hefty new features.
They've added one new spectator. Besides that the game is unchanged.
The game has a few new features/updates/improvements. Of course that would defy the logic that no competition makes them put out crap every year without worrying about it.
I'm not going to buy the game unless they have some pretty hefty new features.
Isn't that what everyone says, every year?
I don't know what everyone else says. In the past I've purchased it for major changes to the team (RR being hired) or major changes in the game (custom playbooks). I don't really see any changes that would affect my game play, which is why I'm asking.
Rule of thumb I have is to buy it every other year.
Its like breathing, I just buy it without thinking of it, without telling myself to do it, it just happens.
Just a few bug fixes and new rosters, as usual. I know I wont be buying it.
I'm gonna be honest, us having a better D than Sparty doesnt make a lot of sense to me this year especially, w our question marks up front.
More importantly... Our d higher than Alabama's
A prestige rating of 6 is the maximum rating.
How intuitive of them.
Form will be: name, offense, defense, special teams, prestige
Alabama: 97, 92, 95, 6
Notre Dame: 97, 94, 95, 6
Michigan St.: 93, 89, 89, 4
Ohio: 95, 89, 95, 6
all need their o and d ratings switched. ND needs 10 subtracted from all their ratings.
So they have MSU's offense (new QB, new WR's, etc) higher rated than their defense?? That would make me want to buy this game for it's "accuracy"
Skimmed through the ratings and it looks like defenses are lower rated across the board...I think I only saw one team with a defense rating above 95 (USC with a 99), while there were many many teams with offenses above 95.
So ND is better than Bama?
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That's all
Note: You guys do know that EA doesn't create the overall rankings...right?
They're based on the player ratings and more emphasis is put on starters.
A team with 11 starters at 90...and a bunch of reserves at 60 could have a better overall rating than a team with 11 starters at 85 and a bench full of 80s. The latter is the better unit, but the game may not read it like that (that may be a dramatic example, but it IS weighted).
Also, EA traditionally doesn't "downgrade" players...so if they hyped a kid as a sophomore and he didn't play well, he'll still be good his junior and senior year.
I wouldn't be shocked to see someone like JT Floyd as like a 92 in the game. No disrespect to JT, but that's a big stretch. Someone like Craig Roh, who's started since his freshman year is also likely to be overrated in the game.
Every year I adjust the ratings and make them as realistic as I possibily can compared to other players. I wait until the names come out and then I adjust the top 50 players at each position, and then do Michigan based off that. I also use two pre-season magazines to help, so it's not biased.
The biggest reason I adjust is to boost the freshman and redshirt freshman. With the way you can recruit in the game, guys like Keith Heitzman and Chris Bryant will NEVER see the field in 4 years...in fact, they often get cut. You can make them a respectable rating in the high 70s as redshirt freshman and they eventually become starters or role players as upperclassmen.
And so begins the 14th straight year of MSU fans bitching about how they got screwed on their ratings.
Oregon is not a 6*
There are 14 schools with a 6 rating. There should only be 10 so i think these 4 should be 5's: Oregon, Clemson, Boise St., and Ohio. Picking a 4th was tough, so I made it easy.
Other 6's:
Bama
Auburn
Florida
LSU
Miami
ND
Oklahoma
Texas
USC
Us
I don't think that Miami deserves to be a 6 right now, or maybe ND doesn't, but I think OSU does.
Not sure Boise deserves even a 5.
ohio probably should be a five simply because we will never here the end of it if they are not. I feel like Miami should be a five. There previous eight seasons or so have been only mediocre in a relatively weak acc.
correction ohio 6, Miami 5
has one season where they ALMOST aren't a complete disappointment and they jump 2 stars to a 6 star team?
Sense this does not make.
Auburn and miami...ehhhh
The only time when stars are relevant is recruiting in Dynasty mode. There are 14 6* schools, and I wouldn't be surprised if Oregon is one of the 14 biggest recruiting draws for high school kids right now.
The only 6* ratings I would quibble with are Boise State (even with their success, they still can't recruit with the big boys) and Miami (not a recruiting powerhouse recently).
Come on they were shut out by an SEC defense. That is very good! Ussually because of the SEC speed an offense has negative points at the end of a game.
Clearly EA wasn't dissauded by the Orange Bowl because Clemson still got a 97, 96, 91. And I don't know what compelled them to put Utah at 95, 92 ,91
West Virginia just scored again.
Those ratings are an absolute joke.
If you were to make a top 25 based on these scores, weighting the offense, defense, and special teams scores equally, you'd get this:
| 1 | Wisconsin |
| 2 | Texas |
| 3 | USC |
| 4 | LSU |
| 5 | Oregon |
| 6 | Notre Dame |
| 7 | Oklahoma |
| 8 | Alabama |
| 9 | Clemson |
| 10 | Florida St. |
| 11 | Michigan |
| 12 | Virginia Tech |
| 13 | Ohio St. |
| 14 | Oklahoma St. |
| 15 | South Carolina |
| 16 | Utah |
| 17 | Arkansas |
| 18 | Georgia |
| 19 | TCU |
| 20 | Auburn |
| 21 | Stanford |
| 22 | Texas Am |
| 23 | Michigan St. |
| 24 | Washington |
| 25 | Nebraska |
Yeah.... that top 25 seems pretty bad to me.
Wisconsin being the #1 overall team was the most surprising to me.
From how the polls actually work...
It certainly doesn't track the consensus polls, but it's not too silly (other than Notre Dame at #6, obviously). And remember, these are based only on video game player ratings - they overrate recruiting hype (as opposed to performance, which leads them to overrate disappointing 4* and 5* recruits - e.g. Notre Dame) and don't take into account things like coaching acumen and experience.
Honestly the only justification I can see for this is that they want no one to be less than 80. They need a better scale if everyone is in the 90s. If someone's offense is a 45, well, they should play better. If I can autoplay a game against a terrible team and have it not be a blowout, there's something wrong there.
Agreed. If I autoplay a B1G's first week against a 1-AA team, it shouldn't even be close.
Is Oregon's defense higher rated than it's offense?
In Denard's speed. First ever over 100? Assume he will have highest ever speed rating for a QB. Vick, Roberson, White, Crouch and Bollinger have to be up there.
I went out and bought NCAA 2006 for $3. Everyone should do the same.
Why the hell didn't you already have it?
